636 Forestry Quarterly. 



The argument that the forest value has been figured too high 

 because it could not be secured by a forced sale the author de- 

 molishes very cleverly by pointing out that the condition of forced 

 sale is not likely to occur, and that his values have been secured 

 from actual sales of parcels, and he nails the method of calculating 

 the forest value by capitalizing the present net yield of about 1.3 

 million dollars with an arbitrarily chosen 3% interest rate to 

 about forty- two million dollars instead of the eighty million dol- 

 lars as above. 



The author then deplores the lack of sufficient data regarding 

 increment on which to base closer calculations as to whether the 

 best relation between stock and increment is attained. He advo- 

 cates the establishment of a reserve fund to eke out uneven felling 

 budgets, and to this end a reduction of stock capital by withdraw- 

 ing double the present felling budget for a number of years 

 (amounting to 46 million cubic feet) and placing the 3.6 million 

 dollars thus derived from the forest on interest, thereby easing 

 the silvicultural management and booking the interest to the 

 forest credit. 



In the further discussion the subdivision of costs is of interest. 

 The total cost of producing 100 cubic feet is $4.17, of which $1.31 

 goes for personnel of the administration; $1.50 for wood chop- 

 pers ; 24.6 cents for cultures ; 64 cents for roads, new construction 

 and maintenance ; other general expenses, including labor, in- 

 surance, etc., 47.4 cents. 



In these items the author thinks that really only the cost for 

 roads (new construction, not maintenance) can be reduced; he is 

 doubtful as to whether expense for cultures can in the end be 

 profitably reduced by fostering natural regeneration; he suggests 

 keeping the personnel costs from growing by applying the prin- 

 ciple of not letting an expensive man do what a less expensive 

 man could do as well, i. e. the mechanical work of the forest. 



The whole article is worth pondering over; the article itself 

 speaks in simple mathematical formulae developing this forest 

 value theory, which we have translated into common language. 



In a short note in the same journal Wimmenauer takes ex- 

 ception to the idea that to the material of the felling budget should 

 be given a lower value than to that of the standing timber. He 

 has come to the conclusion that the cost of administration is 



